Oregon falls into the trap....like Michigan

[JustRalph]

This came up in another thread........so instead of hijacking that thread.......
I started this one............

Oregon raised taxes on anybody who makes over $125k or any family that makes more than $250k by passing a ballot initiative the other day. 2% increase. It also raised taxes on Corporations.

From one article:
Oregon voters said yes to Measure 66, boosting the income tax on individuals with taxable income above $125,000 or households above $250,000. Voters also blessed Measure 67, raising corporate income taxes and setting higher minimum tax rates for businesses.

Increasing taxes on businesses in a state with nearly 11 percent unemployment does not make a lot of sense. Higher taxes will not produce more jobs and may limit the ability to add people to payrolls.

Even the most avid referendum supporter will admit the limitation of the process is it asks a simple up-or-down question. In the case of the two measures, the questions could be boiled down to: "Would you like to raise taxes on someone other than yourself?"

No wonder Oregon voters said yes by a margin of roughly 54 percent for both proposals. It was the first time since the 1930s that voters approved a statewide income-tax increase. "

I predict businesses running for the border......... just like Michigan.

Here is one groups analysis

"Prominent Oregon economists have modeled the personal income tax and corporate tax measures now before voters and concluded that their significant rate increases will cost the state perhaps 70,000 lost jobs over the next few years. They will also cost the state 80,000 primarily high-income tax filers—the very people who invest, take risks and create jobs.

These models confirm what the great body of economic literature tells us, that capital and people are mobile, especially the corporations and high-income individuals targeted by Oregon's legislative leadership and the public employee unions. Oregon would do well to heed this research and reject these job-killing taxes.

Steve Buckstein

Cascade Policy Institute "

Here is part of what the WSJ said about it..........

"In the last budget, the Democratic controlled state legislature doled out a $259 million pay raise to the government work force, even as the state was facing a near $1 billion deficit. In the last three years, the state has added 25,000 new public employees while losing 40,000 private sector jobs. The union TV ads say the tax hikes are needed to preserve schools, roads and public services.

The 11% income tax rate will make Oregon's income tax about twice as high as the national average. Businesses in Portland can move across the Columbia River to Vancouver, Washington and pay zero income tax. Oregonians used to argue they didn't have to pay a state sales tax. But the current tax proposal imposes a first-ever "gross receipts tax" on certain retail and wholesalers. This is a disguised sales tax. "

Michigan is the model for raising taxes when the economy is going south........and look how well it worked for them..............

Another case of lunacy.............by the tax and spenders

[mostpost]

So many things wrong here.
"In the last budget, the Democratic controlled state legislature doled out a $259 million pay raise to the government work force, even as the state was facing a near $1 billion deficit
From Oregonian columnist David Saraasohn:
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/david_sarasohn/index.ssf/2010/01/against_the_tax_votes_truth-ki.html
On the so called $259M pay raise
Oregon state government is rolling in so much money, says the Oregonians Against Job-Killing Taxes ad opposing Measures 66 and 67, that it has "$259 million to pay for state employee pay increases."

And right underneath, so that you know the number is accurate, yellow letters light up its source: Legislative Fiscal Office.

Except, back at the state Capitol, Legislative Fiscal Officer Ken Rocco says, "That number is a historical relic at this point. That was a once-upon-a-time number."

Explains Rocco, the number is from 2007, a projection from a very different time of what pay raises might have been in 2009-2011 --if the world hadn't come apart between then and now.

So you can say the number is from the Legislative Fiscal Office --as long as nobody asks the Legislative Fiscal Office.

What's actually happened, with pay freezes and mandatory furloughs, is that over the past year, most state employees are actually making slightly less.

"Prominent Oregon economists have modeled the personal income tax and corporate tax measures now before voters and concluded that their significant rate increases will cost the state perhaps 70,000 lost jobs over the next few years. They will also cost the state 80,000 primarily high-income tax filers—the very people who invest, take risks and create jobs.
The measure raises the minimum tax from $10 (which it has been since 1931) to $150.00. I doubt if any businees will move because of $140.00. It also increases the tax for businesses with income over $250,000 by 1.3%. That is an increase of $9750.00 for a business with an income of $1M. Again I don't think that will cause any business to run for the border. It does cost money to move a business.

But there is another, positive, reason why Oregon voters were smart to approve the increase. Federal stimulus money in the amount of $1B going to Oregon is contingent on Oregon's providing funds. Funds which they would not be able to provide had the measure not passed.
http://streetroots.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/money-to-burn-measure-66-67/
But, according to a variety of sources, there is even more money at stake — up to an additional $1 billion — if the taxes are voted down, because of their connection to money Oregon has received from the federal stimulus package and other matching dollars.

The explanatory statement for Measure 66 published by the Secretary of State’s office in October acknowledges that Oregon stands to lose federal funds.

“Because some state money brings in federal matching funds, the state is likely to receive more federal money if the measure passes than if the measure fails,” it states.
If Measures 66 and 67 were voted down, and Oregon lost the tax revenue, federal stimulus money and federal matching money, it could total as much as $1.5 billion.
The measure sunsets in 2013.

[JustRalph]

Good points,,,,,,,,who do you believe? tough call........


Btw, tax measures rarely sunset.........

Just ask those people in Pennsylvania who are still paying a tax for the Johnstown flood.........you know,.........the flood that happen over a 100 years ago ?

[mostpost]

Btw, tax measures rarely sunset.........
Can't argue with that.......in the real world. :bang:

[jballscalls]

it's a joke. Phil Knight (head of Nike which is here in Oregon) called it 'Oregon's 2nd assisted suicide law"

It always cracks me up when the have nots penalize the haves just so they can have.

I think if the "rich" have to pay more of a tax, then we all should. it's unamerican to penalize people for being successful. atleast it used to be.

[Pace Cap'n]

It's astonishing that some believe that corporations pay taxes. Where in the world would a corporation get the funds to pay any tax levy? Perhaps from their customers? So if a corporate tax is raised, then consumers prices must surely increase to cover the new costs. How can that be a good thing?

[boxcar]

it's a joke. Phil Knight (head of Nike which is here in Oregon) called it 'Oregon's 2nd assisted suicide law"

It always cracks me up when the have nots penalize the haves just so they can have.

I think if the "rich" have to pay more of a tax, then we all should. it's unamerican to penalize people for being successful. atleast it used to be.

And the Libs wonder why corporations have been leaving this country in droves. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I guess libs believe the the only reason for humans' existence is to pay taxes -- and plenty of them. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[ArlJim78]

It's astonishing that some believe that corporations pay taxes. Where in the world would a corporation get the funds to pay any tax levy? Perhaps from their customers? So if a corporate tax is raised, then consumers prices must surely increase to cover the new costs. How can that be a good thing?
It's fundamental but the fact is that these simpletons will never understand this simple truth. Corporations will raise prices or cut salaries, benefits or people, or simply move to a more favorable location. In any case, the outcome is a negative one.

[boxcar]

It's fundamental but the fact is that these simpletons will never understand this simple truth. Corporations will raise prices or cut salaries, benefits or people, or simply move to a more favorable location. In any case, the outcome is a negative one.

They don't want to admit this. As usual, the libs are in denial. If they admitted this, it would kill virtually every warfare talking point on capitalism.

Consumers are at the bottom of the tax chain, not corporations; therefore, corporations, as you have said, do one or more of the above to OFFSET their taxes. More often than not, they simply pass tax increases along to consumers through higher prices.

For example, BO in an attempt to placate his radical base has come up with the idea of taxing banks in order to get them to pay back their government "bailout loans" (many of which were literally forced on them). How laughable! The banks are secretly saying, "Bring it on, BO! We'd love paying back loans that way. What better way than at the expense of all our banking customers!!!" All the banks would do is pass that tax along to their customers in form of higher fees, lower interest rates, etc. With BO's "brilliant" plan, taxpayers would wind up paying the bank loans back to the government because most taxpayers are also banking customers!

Boxcar

[mostpost]

Nothing is more nonsensical than the claim that corporations don't pay taxes. Or. more accurately, that corporations CAN'T pay taxes. Corporations take the cost of raw materials into account when setting the price of their goods. Does this mean their suppliers should not charge them? Why should a corporation pay for electricity? Let's just raise the rates for homeowners and renters to make up the difference.
A corporation can pass a tax increase along to the consumer only to the extent that the market allows. If they raise the price of their product too much sales will suffer.
As a consumer, I pay for a portion of a particular corporation's taxes to the extent that I purchase that corporations products. If a corporation pays no taxes, or if a corporation is not assuming a fair share of the tax burden, it means that I am paying a disproportionate share of ALL the corporation's taxes.
To hear some of you talk, you seem to think that a corporation is somehow absolved of the moral duty to support the nation. That is has the right to participate in the blessings of the United States, but not the duty to ensure those blessings.
We, the people, do not exist to serve corporations. They exist to serve us.

[acorn54]

corporations pass on the cost of taxes to the consumer.
welcome to the welfare state
methinks at least half the population at the present time is getting some form of government assistance
i go to a weekly group and usually one of the topics of conversations is what free stuff the people got from the government the past week

[mostpost]

it's a joke. Phil Knight (head of Nike which is here in Oregon) called it 'Oregon's 2nd assisted suicide law"

It always cracks me up when the have nots penalize the haves just so they can have.

I think if the "rich" have to pay more of a tax, then we all should. it's unamerican to penalize people for being successful. atleast it used to be.
Phil Knight? Why don't you ask the Tin Man what he thinks of rain? Or the Scarecrow what he thinks of fire?

[Black Ruby]

And the Libs wonder why corporations have been leaving this country in droves. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I guess libs believe the the only reason for humans' existence is to pay taxes -- and plenty of them. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

They leave to have their goods produced in sweat shops overseas, then line their pockets selling the goods to Americans. We need a value added tax.

[Tom]

We, the people, do not exist to serve corporations. They exist to serve us.

No they don't.
They exist to make money. For their shareholders.
If you own stock in a company, and the government taxes the hell out of it, it your money going down the drain.

[acorn54]

No they don't.
They exist to make money. For their shareholders.
If you own stock in a company, and the government taxes the hell out of it, it your money going down the drain.

times change. things are not as simple as they use to be
today the very large scale and influence that corporations have means they have a social responsiblity also.

[46zilzal]

No they don't.
They exist to make money. For their shareholders.
If you own stock in a company, and the government taxes the hell out of it, it your money going down the drain.
moving along just like the Robber Barons of old. We need another Teddy to come along and give them all the finger.

[Tom]

times change. things are not as simple as they use to be
today the very large scale and influence that corporations have means they have a social responsiblity also.

They do. Unlike the government, they provide jobs, they fire up investments - like your 401k, they provide the means to sustain our lifestyles and the essential goods and services we need to survive as a people. No one needs a government, but we would up Shot Creek without corporations. Unlike governments, corporations contribute. Governments do nothing other than bleed us dry.

[JustRalph]

You are so far removed from reality sometimes........it is amazing.

Anybody who has ever run a business will tell you that the minute your expenses go up........your prices go up. The two are hand in hand. Consumers pay your expenses. End of story. You can try to put off raising prices, squeezing money from one place to the next. But it always falls on your customers. They pay for it. Always. You think when Gas prices spiked delivery people and service persons didn't have to raise their rates?

Come on........you cannot be this far out of it.

Nothing is more nonsensical than the claim that corporations don't pay taxes. Or. more accurately, that corporations CAN'T pay taxes. Corporations take the cost of raw materials into account when setting the price of their goods. Does this mean their suppliers should not charge them? Why should a corporation pay for electricity? Let's just raise the rates for homeowners and renters to make up the difference.
A corporation can pass a tax increase along to the consumer only to the extent that the market allows. If they raise the price of their product too much sales will suffer.
As a consumer, I pay for a portion of a particular corporation's taxes to the extent that I purchase that corporations products. If a corporation pays no taxes, or if a corporation is not assuming a fair share of the tax burden, it means that I am paying a disproportionate share of ALL the corporation's taxes.
To hear some of you talk, you seem to think that a corporation is somehow absolved of the moral duty to support the nation. That is has the right to participate in the blessings of the United States, but not the duty to ensure those blessings.
We, the people, do not exist to serve corporations. They exist to serve us.

[acorn54]

we are a long way off from any corporations sales from suffering due to their increased prices.
any essential items will always have to be bought regardless of price. if they become too expensive for the individual to purchase with their own money then the government steps in and pays for it. for example food stamps and oil. here in new york we have the heap program where people get government assistance to pay for their oil when it gets unaffordable.

[witchdoctor]

I for one applaud Oregon. They are trying to tax their way out of the recession. We will find out if their hypothesis is true.

[boxcar]

Nothing is more nonsensical than the claim that corporations don't pay taxes. Or. more accurately, that corporations CAN'T pay taxes. Corporations take the cost of raw materials into account when setting the price of their goods. Does this mean their suppliers should not charge them? Why should a corporation pay for electricity? Let's just raise the rates for homeowners and renters to make up the difference.
A corporation can pass a tax increase along to the consumer only to the extent that the market allows. If they raise the price of their product too much sales will suffer.
As a consumer, I pay for a portion of a particular corporation's taxes to the extent that I purchase that corporations products. If a corporation pays no taxes, or if a corporation is not assuming a fair share of the tax burden, it means that I am paying a disproportionate share of ALL the corporation's taxes.
To hear some of you talk, you seem to think that a corporation is somehow absolved of the moral duty to support the nation. That is has the right to participate in the blessings of the United States, but not the duty to ensure those blessings.
We, the people, do not exist to serve corporations. They exist to serve us.

Hey, clueless, every time you buy something from a company, you're contributing toward its tax burden to the government. Believe it. Corporations figure taxes into their cost of doing business, just like they would the cost of goods, raw materials, labor, etc. The irrefutable fact is that consumers comprise the bottom of the tax chain, therefore, we bear all tax burdens.

Of course, you can't accept this fact because the truth is too ugly for you. It would shake your irrational, unjustified hatred for capitalism worse than that earthquake shook Haiti.

And if you want to bring morality into this discussion, then let me give you a another clue about the wickedness of the income tax. This is the most pernicious tax system under the sun because it gives governments the right to the first fruits of our labors, and that is morally wrong. Even the bible, in principle, recognizes the sinfulness of this kind of system, for it is written:

2 Tim 2:6
6 The hard-working farmer ought to be the first to receive his share of the crops.
NASB

Is the farmer any different than any other kind of worker? Should not all workers be the first to partake of the fruit of their labors? But under this Marxist tax system, the government is the first to receive a share of the fruit of our labors.

Further, the Marxist-oriented income tax provides a breeding den for all manner of iniquities, including but not limited to tax loopholes, hidden taxes (such as those which we pay for corporations), social engineering schemes, etc., etc. Why do you think godless, wicked governments prefer the income tax system? The income tax gives governments control over people's personal property (which money is) and this control puts the governments in the driver seat in terms of power by providing them with a vehicle for manipulating and coercing the masses.

So, yes...we all should pay our fair share of taxes under an open, transparent, simple, fair tax system, which the current system hardly qualifies.

Boxcar

[mostpost]

You are so far removed from reality sometimes........it is amazing.

Anybody who has ever run a business will tell you that the minute your expenses go up........your prices go up. The two are hand in hand. Consumers pay your expenses. End of story. You can try to put off raising prices, squeezing money from one place to the next. But it always falls on your customers. They pay for it. Always. You think when Gas prices spiked delivery people and service persons didn't have to raise their rates?

Come on........you cannot be this far out of it.
Let's say we live in your utopia. A utopia where corporations don't have to pay taxes. What happens? According to you, the price of their products will drop because they don't have the burden of paying taxes. What I think will happen is the price will stay the same and they will pocket the difference. Or they will announce a modest reduction, with great fanfare, and still pocket the difference. In the meantime I am paying the same as before for my widgets,and I have to make up in my tax bill what the corporations are no longer paying.
If we tax corporations, or if we raise their taxes, I may have to pay more for my widgets, but my tax obligation remains the same. Furthermore, I do not concede that the corporation will be able to pass the entire cost of a tax increase on to the consumer.

[Robert Goren]

I for one applaud Oregon. They are trying to tax their way out of the recession. We will find out if their hypothesis is true. And we can compare it to South Carolina which has cut taxes and refused federal matching funds. So the companies located SC have voted with their feet. They can't get out fast enough. SC has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country and some of the lowest taxes.

[bigmack]

I do not concede that the corporation will be able to pass the entire cost of a tax increase on to the consumer.
Speaking of large groupings moving in unison with efforts to feed their wants...

Why do you suppose the State Employee Unions were by far the biggest contributing financial backing to pass this augmented tax?

Weird!

(That is assuming we're still talking about the subject at hand)

[newtothegame]

You are so far removed from reality sometimes........it is amazing.

Anybody who has ever run a business will tell you that the minute your expenses go up........your prices go up. The two are hand in hand. Consumers pay your expenses. End of story. You can try to put off raising prices, squeezing money from one place to the next. But it always falls on your customers. They pay for it. Always. You think when Gas prices spiked delivery people and service persons didn't have to raise their rates?

Come on........you cannot be this far out of it.

Ralph....your falling on deaf ears. Libs don't want to hear the truth. But your post is correct 100%.
Business is not in it to "lose" money. See the problem here is that libs would love for business to fail. They only see one side of the equation. Libs want more and more government control. One poster here even said in essence that if a consumer can't afford a necessity, the government would step in a pay the difference. This is what the libs want!! As more and more people become dependent on the government, the government become more and more powerful. Its progessives at their finest! What progessives fair to, or do not want to see is that you have to have the private sector. How can the government continue to pay the difference in peoples needs without taxes? Last I checked, the government doesnt sell anything to make a profit. Now (follow along here my liberal progressive friends)...who does the government tax? Yep, businesses. And what do businesses in turn do to remain profitable? You guessed right if you said passed along those cost to consumers. Now consumer cost continue to rise, which they couldnt afford in the first place. So now the goverment has to ante up more, which ante ups the taxes which ante's up the cost and so on and so on till one gives. Usually the business gives as its products become unsustainable in rising cost. Now here is where it gets interesting...so american businesses do something that all libs yell about...move either out of state where those taxes are oppressive, or out of country. Libs call them anti american when the fact is that libs and progressives ran them out to start. The other alternative is that businesses just close down. Then americans are forced to IMPORT the needed goods and the unions scream "ANTI AMERICAN". lol Once we import, we are at the mercy of oversees prices, the cost of shipping, etc etc. And if you want an example of this, just look at out oil imports and the cost. We have very little input in the cost. Its mostly controlled by foriegn entities such as OPEC.
Sometimes ya have to wonder if the libs really know what they are asking for??????:bang:

[newtothegame]

Let's say we live in your utopia. A utopia where corporations don't have to pay taxes. What happens? According to you, the price of their products will drop because they don't have the burden of paying taxes. What I think will happen is the price will stay the same and they will pocket the difference. Or they will announce a modest reduction, with great fanfare, and still pocket the difference. In the meantime I am paying the same as before for my widgets,and I have to make up in my tax bill what the corporations are no longer paying.
If we tax corporations, or if we raise their taxes, I may have to pay more for my widgets, but my tax obligation remains the same. Furthermore, I do not concede that the corporation will be able to pass the entire cost of a tax increase on to the consumer.

What????? Thats hillarious... So you conceded "I may have to pay more for my widgets, but my tax obligation remains the same."
So as long as the money comes out of your "left" pocket and not your right its ok??? amazing!!!

[mostpost]

let's look at this another way. The JustRalph widget company sells 1,000,000 widgets a year. They charge $100 for each widget. This means their revenues for their widgets is $100,000,000 per year. Let us say that it costs them $80.00 to manufacture each widget. This cost would include labor, materials, depreciation of machinery, electricity, phones, everything except taxes. So we see that the JustRalph company makes a profit of $20 on each widget sold throughout the year. Since they sold 1,000,000 widgets they made a $20,000,000 profit.
Now we will say that the tax on their profit was 35%. The tax is $7,000,000.
We raise the tax to 37%. The tax is now $7,400,000. How much does The JustRalph widget company have to raise the price of a single widget to pay for the extra $400,000 in taxes. The answer is forty cents.
As a consumer, I can certainly afford to pay an extra forty cents for my widgets. But, I may not have to do even that, because over here is the NJStinks widget company and they are already selling widgets for $95. Pretty soon, just to compete, JustRalph is going to be LOWERING his prices.

[newtothegame]

let's look at this another way. The JustRalph widget company sells 1,000,000 widgets a year. They charge $100 for each widget. This means their revenues for their widgets is $100,000,000 per year. Let us say that it costs them $80.00 to manufacture each widget. This cost would include labor, materials, depreciation of machinery, electricity, phones, everything except taxes. So we see that the JustRalph company makes a profit of $20 on each widget sold throughout the year. Since they sold 1,000,000 widgets they made a $20,000,000 profit.
Now we will say that the tax on their profit was 35%. The tax is $7,000,000.
We raise the tax to 37%. The tax is now $7,400,000. How much does The JustRalph widget company have to raise the price of a single widget to pay for the extra $400,000 in taxes. The answer is forty cents.
As a consumer, I can certainly afford to pay an extra forty cents for my widgets. But, I may not have to do even that, because over here is the NJStinks widget company and they are already selling widgets for $95. Pretty soon, just to compete, JustRalph is going to be LOWERING his prices.

Or the NJ business will realize he is undercharging and raise his prices by 4 or five cents each to make even more...damn bad businesses...anti american SOBS. What was NJ thinking????:bang:

[newtothegame]

Of course I am sure youve never heard of businesses raising their prices in unison either right??? lol
Good thing you didnt own a business.

[mostpost]

What????? Thats hillarious... So you conceded "I may have to pay more for my widgets, but my tax obligation remains the same."
So as long as the money comes out of your "left" pocket and not your right its ok??? amazing!!!
What I think is; if we tax corporations and I have to pay a portion of that tax if I buy their products, I am still better off than if we don't tax corporations and I have to pay all of the tax. The same holds true if we raise taxes. Just the proportions are different. And I still have to buy my widgets and neither you or anyone else can guarantee that the price I pay won't be substantially the same as before.

[newtothegame]

What I think is; if we tax corporations and I have to pay a portion of that tax if I buy their products, I am still better off than if we don't tax corporations and I have to pay all of the tax. The same holds true if we raise taxes. Just the proportions are different. And I still have to buy my widgets and neither you or anyone else can guarantee that the price I pay won't be substantially the same as before.

I can't guarantee your "widget" but I can guarantee the products we sell wont be the same.....I see the price changes that happen DAILY!

[BlueShoe]

Oregon raised taxes on anybody who makes over $125k or any family that makes more than $250k by passing a ballot initiative the other day. 2% increase. It also raised taxes on Corporations. .

Increasing taxes on businesses in a state with nearly 11 percent unemployment does not make a lot of sense. Higher taxes will not produce more jobs and may limit the ability to add people to payrolls.

I predict businesses running for the border......... just like Michigan.
Or California. What many are unaware of is that Oregon is a very liberal state. Many of its citizens have an ingrained entitlement mindset, with unemployment and subsidies of some kind providing a large portion of many families income. Besides a high unemployment rate, much of the work is seasonal. While there are a few fairly conservative enclaves, much of the state is run by leftist Democrats. Portland, in fact, is almost as far left as San Francisco, and shares many of its attitudes. So Oregon has said stick it to the so called fat cats. Guess that they have paid no attention to what has happened to their large southern neighbor. Look for the population of next door very free Idaho is swell a bit as Oregon businesses and citizens look to the east. Boise anyone?

[boxcar]

Sometimes ya have to wonder if the libs really know what they are asking for??????:bang:

Judging by all the buyers' remorse out there among libs for BO, I have to say they're clueless in this respect, as well.

Boxcar

[mostpost]

I can't guarantee your "widget" but I can guarantee the products we sell wont be the same.....I see the price changes that happen DAILY!
I know that some prices can change daily. All you have to do is drive past a gas station. :mad: I'm talking about price changes caused by taxes. I'm saying that a price is much more likely to go up as a result of an increase in taxes, than it is to go down as a result of a decrease in taxes. Not that taxes ever go down. :mad: :mad:

[mostpost]

Judging by all the buyers' remorse out there among libs for BO, I have to say they're clueless in this respect, as well.

Boxcar
Any complaints I have about BO are rooted in the fact he hasn't done enough and has been too accomodating to the Republicans.

[newtothegame]

I know that some prices can change daily. All you have to do is drive past a gas station. :mad: I'm talking about price changes caused by taxes. I'm saying that a price is much more likely to go up as a result of an increase in taxes, than it is to go down as a result of a decrease in taxes. Not that taxes ever go down. :mad: :mad:

See most....this is where you really don't understand business (outside of what you may read) daily. Price changes happen for a VARIETY of reasons. And yes, I can assure you that prices do go down in some cases due to tax breaks. Just as they go up for increases. Here is one of the best examples I can give you. Look at import taxes. When import taxes are not in place, the lower the price. Import taxes in place, price of goods higher. Now I do understand what your attempting to say in that, "what if the tax is there and then removed? Would the retailer or company then lower the price of the good to account for the tax revenue gain?"
Again, I would answer the market dictates that. If its a highly competitive market with many outlets and retailers fighting for the same business, YES they would. If the company holds a monopoly on that certain product, well thats up to the retailer or company. But, if they already have a monopoly, your already at the mercy of the retailer.

[newtothegame]

Any complaints I have about BO are rooted in the fact he hasn't done enough and has been too accomodating to the Republicans.

Accomodating?? lol....until real recently a "super majority" and he has been accomodating??? Just like its the repugs fault that healthcare didnt get passed before the MASS debacle right?? lol
Maybe he should of had reid and pelosi bribe more senators of his own party to get the votes lol

[NJ Stinks]

Accomodating?? Just like its the repugs fault that healthcare didnt get passed before the MASS debacle right?? lol


Any time you try to pass a piece of legislation in the Senate down 40 votes at the outset, you aren't gonna pass much of anything there.

[bigmack]

Any time you try to pass a piece of legislation in the Senate down 40 votes at the outset, you aren't gonna pass much of anything there.
What's the record for 60 in favor throughout & steadfast, until a special election changed the 60 & turned the 59 into a bowl of jello?

What a scramble at this point. Best to hide for any Dem that has interest in their political, for lack of a better term, hide.

[newtothegame]

Any time you try to pass a piece of legislation in the Senate down 40 votes at the outset, you aren't gonna pass much of anything there.

So what your really saying is that the democratic party cant agree on anything??? :lol:

[Boris]

Let's say we live in your utopia. A utopia where corporations don't have to pay taxes. What happens? According to you, the price of their products will drop because they don't have the burden of paying taxes. What I think will happen is the price will stay the same and they will pocket the difference. Or they will announce a modest reduction, with great fanfare, and still pocket the difference. In the meantime I am paying the same as before for my widgets,and I have to make up in my tax bill what the corporations are no longer paying.
If we tax corporations, or if we raise their taxes, I may have to pay more for my widgets, but my tax obligation remains the same. Furthermore, I do not concede that the corporation will be able to pass the entire cost of a tax increase on to the consumer.
Here is a specific example for you that should be easy to research. Take a look at tobacco, or more specifically cigarette prices, over the last two years. Is there any evidence you can find that shows business (or corporations as you say) absorbed any portion of any tax increase?

[Boris]

let's look at this another way. The JustRalph widget company sells 1,000,000 widgets a year. They charge $100 for each widget. This means their revenues for their widgets is $100,000,000 per year. Let us say that it costs them $80.00 to manufacture each widget. This cost would include labor, materials, depreciation of machinery, electricity, phones, everything except taxes. So we see that the JustRalph company makes a profit of $20 on each widget sold throughout the year. Since they sold 1,000,000 widgets they made a $20,000,000 profit.
Now we will say that the tax on their profit was 35%. The tax is $7,000,000.
We raise the tax to 37%. The tax is now $7,400,000. How much does The JustRalph widget company have to raise the price of a single widget to pay for the extra $400,000 in taxes. The answer is forty cents.
As a consumer, I can certainly afford to pay an extra forty cents for my widgets. But, I may not have to do even that, because over here is the NJStinks widget company and they are already selling widgets for $95. Pretty soon, just to compete, JustRalph is going to be LOWERING his prices.
Did you play first base? I have not seen a stretch like that in a while. So the 40 cent price increase at JR Inc. is really a good thing because consumers will price shop him and discover the same thing across the street for a substantial savings. Is this a benefit of raising taxes?

And when you call NJS Widgets for support on your product and get an overseas call center, you'll bitch at him for shipping jobs overseas, not realizing that you, the consumer, contribute to the job shift. Evil corporations!

Wow. You really should not pretend you know anything about how business works.

[Tom]

That may explain why the Post Office if billions in debt! :lol:

[witchdoctor]

let's look at this another way. The JustRalph widget company sells 1,000,000 widgets a year. They charge $100 for each widget. This means their revenues for their widgets is $100,000,000 per year. Let us say that it costs them $80.00 to manufacture each widget. This cost would include labor, materials, depreciation of machinery, electricity, phones, everything except taxes. So we see that the JustRalph company makes a profit of $20 on each widget sold throughout the year. Since they sold 1,000,000 widgets they made a $20,000,000 profit.
Now we will say that the tax on their profit was 35%. The tax is $7,000,000.
We raise the tax to 37%. The tax is now $7,400,000. How much does The JustRalph widget company have to raise the price of a single widget to pay for the extra $400,000 in taxes. The answer is forty cents.
As a consumer, I can certainly afford to pay an extra forty cents for my widgets. But, I may not have to do even that, because over here is the NJStinks widget company and they are already selling widgets for $95. Pretty soon, just to compete, JustRalph is going to be LOWERING his prices.


Let me see how this works. Taxes go up and the JustRalph Widget Company can't afford to pass the cost on to the public so his profit goes down. JustRalph Widgets then looks to see what it cost to move. The accountant figures they can move their company to China and produce widgets for $40 including shipping and tariffs. This means JustRalph can lower his price on widgets to $79 and increase his profits to $39 million provided he doesn't increase market share. The state then see a rise in unemployment due to the workers from the closed JustRalph widget company. These workers are not paying income taxes, stop buying form local businesses, and collecting unemployment benefits. To compensate fro the lost in tax revenue, the state raises taxes on the remaining businesses including NJStinks widgets. NJStinks Widgets now has to figure out how to make a profits selling widgets that cost $80 to make for less than $79. He lays off workers which subsequently cause a further loss of spending and loss of sale tax revenue and increase in tax rate. NJStinks gives up, closes his shop, and decides to go work for the government.


Now I understand.

[NJ Stinks]

Just wanted to add that at NJS Widgets, we have a union shop, offer excellent employee benefits, and wouldn't be caught dead outsourcing work. :cool:

Our motto is: "Democratic Values Imbue Every Widget Made". ;)

[witchdoctor]

Just wanted to add that at NJS Widgets, we have a union shop, offer excellent employee benefits, and wouldn't be caught dead outsourcing work. :cool:

Our motto is: "Democratic Values Imbue Every Widget Made". ;)


I applaud you. Values before profits. So what if we lose money on each widget, we will make it up in volume.

[mostpost]

Let me see how this works. Taxes go up and the JustRalph Widget Company can't afford to pass the cost on to the public so his profit goes down. JustRalph Widgets then looks to see what it cost to move. The accountant figures they can move their company to China and produce widgets for $40 including shipping and tariffs. This means JustRalph can lower his price on widgets to $79 and increase his profits to $39 million provided he doesn't increase market share. The state then see a rise in unemployment due to the workers from the closed JustRalph widget company. These workers are not paying income taxes, stop buying form local businesses, and collecting unemployment benefits. To compensate fro the lost in tax revenue, the state raises taxes on the remaining businesses including NJStinks widgets. NJStinks Widgets now has to figure out how to make a profits selling widgets that cost $80 to make for less than $79. He lays off workers which subsequently cause a further loss of spending and loss of sale tax revenue and increase in tax rate. NJStinks gives up, closes his shop, and decides to go work for the government.


Now I understand.
Most companies are not going to move to China. As has been pointed out here many times most jobs are provided by small businesses. They are individually owned by local entrepeneurs. These people are not going to move their businesses over seas. I have a friend who owns a small plasics company in the Chicago area. He employs about 30-40 people in his shop. Because of the recession, he closed the shop one day, or sometimes one afternoon, a week during the summer. He did this so he wouldn't have to lay off workers. He got some complaints, but his workers accepted this as the better of two bad alternatives. The main point is he would never consider movin ghis business out of state, much less out of the country. True a large corporation is much more likely to shift operations to China or Mexico.
That is why we need to reestablish tariffs on imported goods. I am eagerly awaiting the hue and cry that last sentence will bring. But what is the situation now as we operate without significant tariffs? Foreign manufacturers, which benefit from reduced labor costs, are able to sell their products in this country at a rate lower than American manufacturers. This causes a loss of American Jobs. American manufacturers move jobs overseas, either because they feel it will help them compete, or in order to increase profits. This causes a loss of American jobs. Eventually enough Americans will lose their jobs that no one will be able to buy even the cheap foreign products.

[boxcar]

Now I understand.

Good post! However, it was wasted because from NJ's response you can tell he didn't understand a word you said.

Boxcar

[bigmack]

Just wanted to add that at NJS Widgets, we have a union shop, offer excellent employee benefits, and wouldn't be caught dead outsourcing work.

Our motto is: "Democratic Values Imbue Every Widget Made". ;)
Since Mosty doesn't want to address the actual subject of the thread RE: the increase of taxes in OR, how would you explain the large infusion of loot by the State Employee Unions to help pass this tax increase?

[mostpost]

Just wanted to add that at NJS Widgets, we have a union shop, offer excellent employee benefits, and wouldn't be caught dead outsourcing work. :cool:

Our motto is: "Democratic Values Imbue Every Widget Made". ;)
Hooray :jump: :jump: an enlightened businessman who realizes that treating his employees well is good business. If I ever figure out what a Widget is, I will be sure and purchase mine from you. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[mostpost]

Since Mosty doesn't want to address the actual subject of the thread RE: the increase of taxes in OR, how would you explain the large infusion of loot by the State Employee Unions to help pass this tax increase?
I haven't? :confused: :confused: :confused:
The thred is about Oregon passing a tax increase targeted at the perons most able to afford it. One of he points made by opponents was that the state had enough money to pass pay raises for its employees in the amount of $259M. I pointed out, with proof that those raises were not implemented when the economy went bad. It was then argued, as usual, that the raises would cause businesses to leave the state or raise prices. I responded to that. You may disagree with my positions, (YOU DO DISAGREE WITH MY POSITIONS!!!) but everything I wrote has been in response to the theme of the thread or points brought up by others.

[BenDiesel26]

I have a friend who owns a small plasics company in the Chicago area. He employs about 30-40 people in his shop.

Maybe there's a good reason your buddy has a business in Chicago, and not Oregon. Maybe it has to do with the fact that luckily, the Chicago mayor disagrees with you.

After tax vote, Chicago mayor wants to poach Oregon businesses (http://portland.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2010/01/25/daily43.html)


...“It will help (Chicago’s) economic development immediately,” Daley told the Sun-Times. “You’d better believe it. We’ll be out in Oregon enticing corporations to relocate to Chicago. I’ll be very frank. I make no bones about that.”...

...“I’ve always thought America stands for [rewarding success]. You finish high school. You work hard, go to college and you hope to succeed in life," Daley told the Sun-Times. "I never knew it’s a class war—that those who succeed in life are the ones that have to bear all the burden. I never realized that. It will be a whole change in America that those who succeed and work hard [that] we’re gonna tax ‘em more than anyone else.”...

[bigmack]

...“It will help (Chicago’s) economic development immediately,” Daley told the Sun-Times. “You’d better believe it. We’ll be out in Oregon enticing corporations to relocate to Chicago. I’ll be very frank. I make no bones about that.”...

...“I’ve always thought America stands for [rewarding success]. You finish high school. You work hard, go to college and you hope to succeed in life," Daley told the Sun-Times. "I never knew it’s a class war—that those who succeed in life are the ones that have to bear all the burden. I never realized that. It will be a whole change in America that those who succeed and work hard [that] we’re gonna tax ‘em more than anyone else.”...
This is precious. From Daley to boot. :lol: :lol:

Mosty, stick to postal matters. You ain't cut out for the private sector.

[Steve 'StatMan']

Yup, as the article says, we/Chicago did it before getting Boeing to leave the Pacific North West.

[skate]

Yes sir, the states have a much different problem...s.

Oregon, wow wee. welp at least Oregon will show others (maybe) the wrong way to go, i guess.

The States have big problems, too much neo-lib thinking, not to be cleaned
LATELY.

[witchdoctor]

Most companies are not going to move to China. As has been pointed out here many times most jobs are provided by small businesses. They are individually owned by local entrepeneurs. These people are not going to move their businesses over seas. I have a friend who owns a small plasics company in the Chicago area. He employs about 30-40 people in his shop. Because of the recession, he closed the shop one day, or sometimes one afternoon, a week during the summer. He did this so he wouldn't have to lay off workers. He got some complaints, but his workers accepted this as the better of two bad alternatives. The main point is he would never consider movin ghis business out of state, much less out of the country. True a large corporation is much more likely to shift operations to China or Mexico.
That is why we need to reestablish tariffs on imported goods. I am eagerly awaiting the hue and cry that last sentence will bring. But what is the situation now as we operate without significant tariffs? Foreign manufacturers, which benefit from reduced labor costs, are able to sell their products in this country at a rate lower than American manufacturers. This causes a loss of American Jobs. American manufacturers move jobs overseas, either because they feel it will help them compete, or in order to increase profits. This causes a loss of American jobs. Eventually enough Americans will lose their jobs that no one will be able to buy even the cheap foreign products.


In YOUR example, JustRalph Widgets had annual sales of 100 million dollars. Do you consider this a small mom and pop business? If so, at what level of sales do you consider as a medium or large size company? Is Nike, IBM, or Microsoft considered as small businesses? (I would have included General Motors but it is on it's way to becoming a small business.)

Do you consider Moby Dick a minnow? Godzilla is just a small lizard?

[mostpost]

Maybe there's a good reason your buddy has a business in Chicago, and not Oregon. Maybe it has to do with the fact that luckily, the Chicago mayor disagrees with you.

After tax vote, Chicago mayor wants to poach Oregon businesses (http://portland.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2010/01/25/daily43.html)


...“It will help (Chicago’s) economic development immediately,” Daley told the Sun-Times. “You’d better believe it. We’ll be out in Oregon enticing corporations to relocate to Chicago. I’ll be very frank. I make no bones about that.”...

...“I’ve always thought America stands for [rewarding success]. You finish high school. You work hard, go to college and you hope to succeed in life," Daley told the Sun-Times. "I never knew it’s a class war—that those who succeed in life are the ones that have to bear all the burden. I never realized that. It will be a whole change in America that those who succeed and work hard [that] we’re gonna tax ‘em more than anyone else.”...
Chicago AREA, not Chicago. Pay Attention. :bang:

[mostpost]

In YOUR example, JustRalph Widgets had annual sales of 100 million dollars. Do you consider this a small mom and pop business? If so, at what level of sales do you consider as a medium or large size company? Is Nike, IBM, or Microsoft considered as small businesses? (I would have included General Motors but it is on it's way to becoming a small business.)

Do you consider Moby Dick a minnow? Godzilla is just a small lizard?
The widget example was about corporations, large or moderaely large and how taxes affect them. The post about small business was about whether such businesses would be likely to leave an area. Small businesses as defined by the SBA.